Blaster Suppressor located in Strongholds of Resistance says that "such modifications have a somewhat stifling effect on a blaster's standard damage and range".

I don't see that translated in the Base Modifier....

All it says is Adds Black Dice x2 to any Perception or Vigilance checks made to locate a concealed shooter firing the silenced blaster

I guess it means that it is flavor text...?! I guess if you use 1 HP on your gun to use that, you can't use the HP for a damage boost...

Also a way of explaining why the same marksman would have different rates of damage using a suppressed vs an un-suppressed blaster. So narratively the marksman may hit just as often, but the reduction in stopping power results in fewer hits, or hits of lesser damage due to reduced bonus successess? Just an opinion.

2 hours ago, Mefyrx said:

Blaster Suppressor located in Strongholds of Resistance says that "such modifications have a somewhat stifling effect on a blaster's standard damage and range".

I don't see that translated in the Base Modifier....

All it says is Adds Black Dice x2 to any Perception or Vigilance checks made to locate a concealed shooter firing the silenced blaster

I guess it means that it is flavor text...?! I guess if you use 1 HP on your gun to use that, you can't use the HP for a damage boost...

If it isnt a rule, dont apply it as a rule. The stat changes are very plainly marked. Text that isnt part of the attachment effect or mod effect lines are irrelevant. If the text says 'This gun is incapable of doing no damage' and the effect line of the mod is 'Causes nearest star to spontaneously supernova', then the attachment makes stars blow up

8 hours ago, korjik said:

If it isnt a rule, dont apply it as a rule. The stat changes are very plainly marked. Text that isnt part of the attachment effect or mod effect lines are irrelevant. If the text says 'This gun is incapable of doing no damage' and the effect line of the mod is 'Causes nearest star to spontaneously supernova', then the attachment makes stars blow up

Yeah. Rules often get revised multiple times over the course of development, and sometimes the flavour text doesn't keep up.

Im not sure the flavor text always keeps up even when the rule is not revised.

or even when someone is just posting an example, since apparently I just failed English.

There are a number of these throughout the system. The fluff on jetpacks remarks that they hold very little fuel, but there is nothing in the rules to reflect that. Then there's the Merr-Sonn Model 53 which does the same damage as a standard blaster despite the fluff implying it's not as powerful.

6 hours ago, Vorzakk said:

Then there's the Merr-Sonn Model 53 which does the same damage as a standard blaster despite the fluff implying it's not as powerful.

It just says it's "not the most powerful available" which is true since it's a standard blaster pistol and not a heavy blaster pistol.

And yeah, my frame of reference is waaaay back in WEG they said Blasters couldn't be, or were very very hard to efficiently suppress. So Stealthy types tended to use suppressed slugthrowers instead (an idea I personally liked since it gave a reason for slugthrowers to still be in circulation). Still there was one NPC is the bar sourcebook with a suppressed holdout blaster and it's damage was laughably low.

I question the need for a blaster suppressor at all. Why not have other weapons in that role? An actual silenced slugthrower or some other weapon that people don't see ever because they are used to the ubiquitous blasters. Maybe it's not such a hot idea to completely second guess the technology and build your own stuff to this degree FFG? A non-blaster blaster? Since it's named after its sound would that be like a Whiffter Pistol?

I see three applications of this: the long range sniper, the up close silent pistol, and the assaulter sub-machine gun.

The Blaster seems like an all-around terrible weapon for sniping. It's velocity is crap as seen in the movies, it shows exactly where the shooter is, and it makes a blaster noise. Trying to hit a laterally moving target at any decent range with such a weapon would be ridiculously hard. You would need a computer essentially shooting for you. The Blaster bolt does damage because it is some sort of plasma or light energy, so if you make it invisible you are hand-waving that much more of the physics. The blaster noise is cool, but I maybe you can suppress it with an inverse wave emitter or something, assuming that the sound is loudest and is concentrated at the muzzle. If the bolt itself is making that sound because of the interaction with the packet and the air then you can't silence it. In the force awakens the frozen blaster bolt crackles audibly, which I imagine if you were the observer and heard that sped up might sound like the typical blaster sound we normally hear when combines with whatever initial sound occurs because of the air at the muzzle encountering a sudden increase of temperature and pressure and being forced out of the way.

Blasters for up close work would seem to be great on the damage end of the scale, but the flash from the shot would be a big deal and basically would require you be out of sight of anyone anyway. I feel like this is an earth analog of a suppressor and the attempted mystique of the mob or spy hit. Couldn't you just get a space pillow then and put that over your victim's face before depressing the firing stud on your blaster pistol?

For hop and pop type situations where your characters have blaster carbines outfitted with suppressors so that they can be Navy Seals you still have a fireworks show of blaster bolts going off, so again unless you are going to make blasters silent and non-light emitting maybe try a weapon that doesn't require such gymnastics to use in that situation and for that purpose? Just a thought.

Blaster suppressors have appeared in SW fiction, as such it makes sense to include it in the game. For instance, the DC-19 "Stealth blaster" had a sound suppressor built into it that not only made the blaster bolt much quieter, but alternatively, invisible to the naked eye.

24 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Blaster suppressors have appeared in SW fiction, as such it makes sense to include it in the game. For instance, the DC-19 "Stealth blaster" had a sound suppressor built into it that not only made the blaster bolt much quieter, but alternatively, invisible to the naked eye.

I'm sure you can find instances of all kinds of weapons, and I'm not making an argument that you can't have non-blaster blasters, but I am just wondering why that is a preference over slugthrowers or gauss weapons or something.

22 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

I'm sure you can find instances of all kinds of weapons, and I'm not making an argument that you can't have non-blaster blasters, but I am just wondering why that is a preference over slugthrowers or gauss weapons or something.

It's not. Blasters are much harder to make silenced or to suppress the visual bolt of. It's much easier to silence a slug thrower, so those are more common for snipers, particularly when stealth is required rather than blasters. The advantage blasters have is the weight of ammunition . Slug thrower ammunition adds up in terms of weight as opposed to blasters.

29 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Blaster suppressors have appeared in SW fiction, as such it makes sense to include it in the game. For instance, the DC-19 "Stealth blaster" had a sound suppressor built into it that not only made the blaster bolt much quieter, but alternatively, invisible to the naked eye.

And there's usually a ridiculous trade-off.

R'Kayza's suppressed pistol had a damage so low it was kinda funny. Would be like a holdout blast with damage in the 2-3 range now.

The DC-19 also mentioned it loses stun, has to cool between shots, and has to be reloaded every 10 shots, and it otherwise has numbers that sounded roughly on-par with blaster carbines.

And that's kinda my beef with the Suppressor in SoR. It's not expensive, it's not rare, it doesn't affect the weapons damage, or crit, or range, and it works on any blaster pistol.

If it were more rare and did something like reduce range like the shortened barrel and reduced damage by 2 to a minimum of 1, I'd probably be totally fine with it.

Then you can have the DC-19 as a named statted weapon that's a blaster carbine with no stun setting, Slow-firing 1, and Limited Ammo 10, with a high cost and rarity, which is why it's not really in circulation.

Slugthrower suppressors, which could reduce range or something in exchange for the reduced report and be compatible with rifles as well as pistols.

And of course you'd round it out with the bows, shatter and rail weapons, and thrown to complete your silent arsenal.

Trying to apply real life to star wars weapons isnt really useful. Sorry, but a blaster wouldnt even be a weapon in real life, since like Archlyte said its shot speed is laughably low. People could dodge it with some skill and luck, much less the complete impossibility of hitting a moving vehicle at vehicle engagement ranges.

The only rule is the rule of cool. Blaster suppressors exist because silenced weapons are cool when sniping. There is no physical rhyme or reason other than that. This applies to everything in star wars.

Really, I have had to say it so many times in the last few weeks that I am starting to wonder about everyones sanity but:

Do not look to closely, this way lies madness!

21 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

It's not. Blasters are much harder to make silenced or to suppress the visual bolt of. It's much easier to silence a slug thrower, so those are more common for snipers, particularly when stealth is required rather than blasters. The advantage blasters have is the weight of ammunition . Slug thrower ammunition adds up in terms of weight as opposed to blasters.

While that's true, how much ammo are you gonna need to carry for those stealth weapons?

1 minute ago, Archlyte said:

While that's true, how much ammo are you gonna need to carry for those stealth weapons?

At least a few clips, and, depending upon the caliber, that can get rather heavy, much heavier than a comparable blaster.

10 minutes ago, korjik said:

Trying to apply real life to star wars weapons isnt really useful. Sorry, but a blaster wouldnt even be a weapon in real life, since like Archlyte said its shot speed is laughably low. People could dodge it with some skill and luck, much less the complete impossibility of hitting a moving vehicle at vehicle engagement ranges.

The only rule is the rule of cool. Blaster suppressors exist because silenced weapons are cool when sniping. There is no physical rhyme or reason other than that. This applies to everything in star wars.

Really, I have had to say it so many times in the last few weeks that I am starting to wonder about everyones sanity but:

Do not look to closely, this way lies madness!

Yes, and no. The actual speed of a blaster bolt on screen varies considerably depending upon the distance from the camera. Blaster bolts speed is basically measured by how fast it travels across the screen. For close up shots, that translates to only a few feet. By contrast, that same blaster bolt in a long distance shot, covers the same screen distance, (but a much greater actual distance) in that span of time, resulting in a much faster bolt.

You don't need to carry a bunch of clips for stealth weapons because in a firefight you would just use your blaster. Once you go loud then there's no point of using the suppressed stuff except to hear better. If the sniper has to be in a position to sustain fire form that position he will be discovered anyway so it won't matter that he isn't using a blaster.

As for the faster bolt theory, that's could be countered by pointing out that those faster bolts are from vehicle weapons. The idea that an individual weapon produces a bolt that shoots at the speed of plot due to the size of the frame isn't satisfying to me.

14 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

You don't need to carry a bunch of clips for stealth weapons because in a firefight you would just use your blaster. Once you go loud then there's no point of using the suppressed stuff except to hear better. If the sniper has to be in a position to sustain fire form that position he will be discovered anyway so it won't matter that he isn't using a blaster.

As for the faster bolt theory, that's could be countered by pointing out that those faster bolts are from vehicle weapons. The idea that an individual weapon produces a bolt that shoots at the speed of plot due to the size of the frame isn't satisfying to me.

Maybe, but that is exactly how it works on screen. The blasters are drawn in to a certain speed for crossing the screen, slow enough to be seen by the viewer, The wider the shot, and further the bolt is from the camera, the more distance the bolt travels within that same frame rate. This is for both hand blasters and vehicle blasters. We see this in the difference between the close up shots of the heroes on Cloud City, and on Endor. Their blaster shots travel much greater distances in the same amount of time on Endor, during the long distance shots, vs the close up shots in the halls of Cloud City because the size of the screen is constant, as is the time it takes for the blaster bolt to cross the screen. Ergo, the farther from the camera the shot is, the more actual distance the blaster bolt covers in that time. So, it's not theory, it's actually how the filming of the blaster bolts is done, and can actually be timed and measured.

18 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

You don't need to carry a bunch of clips for stealth weapons because in a firefight you would just use your blaster. Once you go loud then there's no point of using the suppressed stuff except to hear better. If the sniper has to be in a position to sustain fire form that position he will be discovered anyway so it won't matter that he isn't using a blaster.

As for the faster bolt theory, that's could be countered by pointing out that those faster bolts are from vehicle weapons. The idea that an individual weapon produces a bolt that shoots at the speed of plot due to the size of the frame isn't satisfying to me.

How about that there is no bolt; it's not the bolt that moves, only yourself.

Or that the bolt itself is an optical illusion and as the laser/particle beam is moved and directed allowing the shooter to make minor corrections while the energy is unleashed until it reaches a threshold causing the burn/explosion and those corrections are only visible over extreme ranges, thus explaining why turbolasers have an arc?

1 hour ago, Ghostofman said:

thus explaining why turbolasers have an arc?

Not in My Star Wars! ?

3 hours ago, Ghostofman said:

How about that there is no bolt; it's not the bolt that moves, only yourself.

Or that the bolt itself is an optical illusion and as the laser/particle beam is moved and directed allowing the shooter to make minor corrections while the energy is unleashed until it reaches a threshold causing the burn/explosion and those corrections are only visible over extreme ranges, thus explaining why turbolasers have an arc?

If you mean in The Last Jedi, that was an optical illusion caused by a moving frame of reference. Since Snoke's ship was above the Raddus and having to lead the shots, there is a maxima in the angle between the Raddus' course and the position of the turbolaser shot over time.

Please dont ask me to show my work, it is a really nasty derivative with like 6 variables and a couple trig functions.

21 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Maybe, but that is exactly how it works on screen. The blasters are drawn in to a certain speed for crossing the screen, slow enough to be seen by the viewer, The wider the shot, and further the bolt is from the camera, the more distance the bolt travels within that same frame rate. This is for both hand blasters and vehicle blasters. We see this in the difference between the close up shots of the heroes on Cloud City, and on Endor. Their blaster shots travel much greater distances in the same amount of time on Endor, during the long distance shots, vs the close up shots in the halls of Cloud City because the size of the screen is constant, as is the time it takes for the blaster bolt to cross the screen. Ergo, the farther from the camera the shot is, the more actual distance the blaster bolt covers in that time. So, it's not theory, it's actually how the filming of the blaster bolts is done, and can actually be timed and measured.

While on-screen info is the highest canon, only an imbecile would try to extrapolate in-universe physics such a byproduct of visual effects for anything but humorous remarks. It's like claiming that, in-universe snow speeders have slightly transparent hulls or that, due to the stop motion effects, rancors move in a strange, jerky way.

So I'm going to assume that you were trying to be funny.

16 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

While on-screen info is the highest canon, only an imbecile would try to extrapolate in-universe physics such a byproduct of visual effects for anything but humorous remarks. It's like claiming that, in-universe snow speeders have slightly transparent hulls or that, due to the stop motion effects, rancors move in a strange, jerky way.

So I'm going to assume that you were trying to be funny.

Actually, neither. I'm not trying to be funny, nor using the mechanics of how they make the blaster bolts for film equate to in universe physics. My point of providing this information is to establish that the variations in the speed we see on screen, based upon how far the shot is from the camera means that it is impossible to properly determine the actual in universe speed of a blaster shot by going off of what we see on screen. This is because what we see regarding the apparent speed of a blaster bolt on screen varies depending upon distance from the camera, not in universe physics.

43 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

So I'm going to assume that you were trying to be funny.

I've seen Tramp get jokes occasionally, but I can't recall ever seeing him make jokes.

26 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

I've seen Tramp get jokes occasionally, but I can't recall ever seeing him make jokes.

Did I ever tell you the story of the Irish Bard Ventriloquist ? ?

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

Did I ever tell you the story of the Irish Bard Ventriloquist ? ?

OK, I've now seen something new...

A Tramp post with italics and without bold type!